Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 9/12/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive with regards to the prior art rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Cole (US 20020175019).
Applicant's arguments filed 9/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the drawing objections concerning the shortenable properties of the toothed rack and toothed rack housing halves and the adjustable angle property of the tubular neck. Applicant has argued that these properties are not conducive to being shown in drawings; however, the office disagrees. Such a property might be shown – provided it does not introduce new matter - through a phantom illustration of the maximum or minimum range of the toothed rack, the housing halves, and the neck or through another illustration such as multiple drawings with the different lengths and angles being incorporated to display how the shortenable and adjustable properties influence the overall size and shape of the modular steering system.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the shortenable tube of the toothed rack, the shortenable toothed rack housing halves, and the adjustable angle of the tubular neck must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole (US 20020175019) in view of Amada (US 20070084665 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cole teaches a modular steering system 28 ([0016], Fig. 2), comprising:
a tubular neck configured to guide a universal joint 34 (Fig. 2; the neck portion of the gearbox housing 10 guides the steering shaft and its universal joint), wherein the tubular neck is configured to define a certain bend angle (Figs. 1-2; the neck is at an angle relative to the rack 14, 16);
a gearbox assembly 40 including a gearbox ([0016], Figs. 1-2; the housing holds pinion gear 40 which interacts with the toothed rack); a toothed rack 14, 16 including a shortenable tube ([0016] the toothed rack comprises two pieces 14 and 16 which are shortenable along line 26), the toothed rack being operably connected to the gearbox so as to receive power from the gearbox ([0016]; the rack is operatively connected to the pinion gear 40 within the gearbox);
a gearbox housing 10 that houses the gearbox assembly 40 (Fig. 2);
two tubular toothed rack housing halves 42, 44 ([0016], Fig. 2), wherein the gearbox housing 10 is disposed between the two tubular toothed rack housing halves (Fig. 2); and
two feet (See annotated Fig. 2 below), one of which is disposed at each respective outer end of the two tubular toothed rack housing halves 42, 44 (Fig. 2), wherein the two feet are configured to fasten the power steering system to the vehicle, and wherein each of the two feet includes a bushing for guiding the toothed rack 14, 16 (See annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding the limitation of the toothed rack housing halves being shortenable, see In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) (Claims were directed to a handle for a fishing rod wherein the handle has a longitudinally adjustable finger hook, and the hand grip of the handle connects with the body portion by means of a universal joint. The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art-recognized need for adjustment in a fishing rod, the substitution of a universal joint for the single pivot of the prior art would have been obvious.). Modifying the toothed rack housing halves to be shortenable so that a desired width can be achieved is known in the art and would be an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Cole does not teach a drive assembly including an electric motor which is configured to be controlled by a control unit or the gearbox assembly including a torque sensor.
However, Amada teaches an electric power steering apparatus which includes an electric motor MT which is configured to be controlled by a control unit ([0044], Fig. 1 of Amada; the electronic control unit connects to and transmits driving signals to the electric motor) and a gearbox assembly GB including a torque sensor TS ([0044] and [0048], Fig. 2 of Amada).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering system of Cole to have the electric motor assist, control unit, and torque sensor of Amada in order to advantageously mitigate kick back and vibration from being inputted on to the steering wheel (Abstract of Amada).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole in view of Amada, and further in view of KR 20120130650 (henceforth KR).
Regarding claim 2, Cole as modified teaches the toothed rack 14, 16 includes a tube to which a toothing element 18, 20 is fastened ([0015], Fig. 1); and
the gearbox housing 10 includes an upper gearbox housing in which the gear mechanism is accommodated and a lower gearbox housing in which a pinion 40 of the gear mechanism is in engagement with the toothed rack 14, 16 ([0016], See annotated Fig. 2 below).
Cole as modified does not teach a helical gear mechanism.
However, KR teaches a power steering device wherein the gearbox of the gearbox assembly is a helical gear mechanism (Paragraph 18, Fig. 2 of KR).
Cole as modified teaches a device which differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a helical gear within the gearbox for teeth of an unspecified type. Helical gears are well known in the art and are taught by KR.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted helical gear teeth of KR for the teeth of the modified power steering system of Cole/Amada and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and provided the known advantages of quieter operation, increased longevity, and higher load capacity.
While KR does not teach “an upper gearbox housing in which the helical gear mechanism is accommodated”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the modified gearbox of Cole/Amada consisting of an upper gearbox housing in which the now helical pinion is accommodated and a lower gearbox housing in which a pinion of the helical gear mechanism is in engagement with the toothed rack.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole in view of Amada, and further in view of Ridgway (US 20100300237).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant's claim is a product-by-process claim. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and not dependent upon the method of production. See MPEP 2113. The product of Applicant’s product-by-process claim is the same as or an obvious variant of the process in Cole/Amada.
Cole as modified teaches a method for assembling a modular electric power steering system ([0016]), comprising:
selecting the gearbox assembly, the drive assembly, the gearbox housing 10, and the feet from a standardized kit ([0015]-[0016], Fig. 2; Cole teaches a drive assembly, gearbox assembly, gearbox housing, and feet);
shortening a standard length toothed rack 14, 16 to a desired length to form the toothed rack ([0015], Fig. 1; the overall length of the toothed rack 14, 16 is shortened to provide a desired set of forces to the steering system);
shortening two standard length tubular housing halves 42, 44 to respective desired lengths to form the two tubular toothed rack housing halves (See claim 1 rejection above);
arranging and aligning the gearbox assembly, the drive assembly, the gearbox housing 10, the toothed rack 14, 16, the tubular neck, and the two tubular toothed rack housing halves 42, 44 with respect to one another (Fig. 2; all the listed components are arranged with respect to each other); rotating the feet (see annotated Fig. 2 below) relative to the toothed rack housing halves 42, 44 such that a desired installation angle is set (Fig. 2; the feet are mounted on the steering assembly at a desired installation angle).
Regarding the limitation of “adjusting the tubular neck to a desired angle”, see In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) (Claims were directed to a handle for a fishing rod wherein the handle has a longitudinally adjustable finger hook, and the hand grip of the handle connects with the body portion by means of a universal joint. The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art-recognized need for adjustment in a fishing rod, the substitution of a universal joint for the single pivot of the prior art would have been obvious.). Making the tubular neck have an adjustable angle is an obvious matter of design choice and would have provided the advantage of allowing the steering column to be adjusted for different vehicle body shapes and types.
While Cole does not teach “rotating the tubular neck along its longitudinal axis such that a desired bend angle of the universal joint is set”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the modified adjustable neck angle of Cole/et.al. providing a desired bend angle to the universal joint of Cole.
Cole as modified does not expressly teach fixedly assembling the gearbox assembly, the drive assembly, the gearbox housing, the toothed rack, the tubular neck, and the two tubular toothed rack housing halves by pressing, shrinking, and/or welding.
However, Ridgway teaches a collapsible steering column assembly which uses welding to assemble components ([0028] of Ridgway).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use welding or any other suitable means of affixing components to attach the individual modules of the modified power steering assembly of Amada in order to advantageously make suitable permanent connections between the modules where necessary ([0028] of Ridgway).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611